geert-jan van bussel the theoretical framework for the 'archive-as-is'
an organization oriented view on archives - part i
The continuum theory and model are based on four dimensions: create, capture,
organize, and pluralize, corresponding with four steps of time-space distanciation
mentioned by Giddens (1984, p. 298) in an analytic example The dimensions of
the continuum describe how organizational archives (and the records captured
within them) are disembedded from their original context(s) of use to become a
part of a collective memory and carried through spacetime. Their context is
represented by the axes of evidentiality, transactionality, record keeping, and identity
(Upward, 2005). The theory is not about the archives themselves, it is about the
information management activities that add new contexts to them such as
capturing them into systems, or adding metadata. The status of archives is
interpreted as part of a continuum of activity related to known and unknown
contexts, to known or unknown social, cultural, political, and legal processes.
According to the theory, it is this metaview, these contexts that are vital to interpret
and (potentially) understand the role and value of archives in past, present, and
future (McKemmish et al, 2010). A continuum approach highlights from the
beginning that archives are both current and historical, representing one of the core
concepts of structuration: the duality of structures. Archives and their records are
viewed as fixed in content and structure, linked to mutable, ever-broadening layers
of metadata to clarify their meaning and to enable their accessibility and usability
over time (McKemmish, 2001).
Marshall (2000) states that the most important focus of the theory are the multiple
purposes of archives (in multiple contexts) over time. Visualizations of the records
continuum theory explain it (in essence) as a context theory, emphasizing the
ever-broadening layers of contextual descriptions attached to records and archives.
The aim of the theory is to provide a framework for conceptualizing archives in
multiple contexts over space and time. Creating archives starts before they are
created by implementing their requirements in policies, systems, organizations,
processes, and laws. These requirements need to be integrated into social and
business processes and purposes. The theory is heavily indebted to Australian
postcustodial practices (see note 4), Terry Cook's (1992, 1997, 2005) ideas about
macro-appraisal, and especially to David Bearman's (1993ab, 1994, 1996 (with
Wendy Duff)) work on evidence, transactionality, and systems thinking. The
influence of Bearman's extremely complex and inconsistent paper 'Record Keeping
Systems' (Bearman, 1993a) is largely responsible for the mentioned axes of
'transactionality' and 'evidentiality'.
The theory's most important contribution is its accentuation of the importance of
context and contextualizing for understanding the 'contextual narrative' of archives
in spacetime. It has become common thinking in archival science that this
'contextual narrative' is an absolute necessity for revealing meaning, for
accessibility, and for usability. But despite this long-lasting contribution and its very
valuable insights into the context of records, which have greatly influenced my
thinking about archives, from its formulation onwards, the theory itself has been on
very shaky grounds.
3.1.2. Criticism: omissions, comprehensibility, and philosophical foundations
To counter omissions, some revisions of the theory have been suggested. Terry Cook
(2000b) suggested (quite sensibly) to separate evidence and memory into their own
axes. He also suggests adding a new dimension (besides Create, Capture, Organize,
and Pluralize) for archives of private origin. A fifth dimension is also (convincingly)
proposed by Yvon Lemay and Anne Klein (2014), namely that of the use
('l'exploitation') of archives. But adding new dimensions to the theory is
inconsistent with its structurationist nature. It would break the theoretical link to
the four steps of time-space distanciation mentioned by Giddens (1984, p. 298).
These steps are the sole reason for the four dimensions of the Records Continuum
theory. New dimensions eliminate the possibility to directly link the records
continuum to Giddens' structuration theory. Karabinos (2015) created 'the shadow
continuum' to correct an omission in the theory concerning archives stuck between
dimensions.
Michael Piggott (2012), an Australian supporter of the theory, made several remarks
about the theory's problematic comprehensibility and its abstract nature. He states
(2012, p. 180) that 'the core texts are not always easy to understand' and that it is
very difficult 'to comprehend the intended meaning of continuum writing'. More
problematic is his contestation that the continuum model is an abstraction that
relies 'on the viewer to draw a correct inference' (Piggott, 2012, p. 183). That is
confirmed by Karabinos (2015, p. 14) who states that it is the reader to make
conclusions on what the model attempts to visualize because the model is
'confusing and vague'. One could characterize this as a postmodernist expression,
but it is, of course, problematic, for a model that seemingly cannot convey its
meaning in a straightforward way is very difficult to test (Piggott, 2012, p. 185).
The philosophical foundations of the theory are also heavily criticized. Verne Harris
(2004, p. 215-216) condemns, in quite strong terms, Sue McKemmish's (2001,
p. 347) claim for the model as 'post-modern philosophical thinking' and to be
'universal' as 'the worst case of misidentification', as 'a co-opting - or colonising -
move designed to have us believe that what is a wild tiger is only a domestic cat' and
the fact that she 'ignores the fact that postmodernisms seek relentlessly to disturb
every totalising conceptual container'. Harris is opposing the (theoretically
untenable) totalizing worldview of the theory that ignores existing differences in
information and records management. Andrew Lau (2013, p. 200-204) finds the
structurationist theoretical foundations inadequate. Using Manuel DeLanda's
(2006) neo-assemblage theory and its different view of society6, he analyses the
continuum theory and reveals, for instance, the mechanistic view of society and
social complexity that allows for the reductionist approach the theory needs to
identify stabilized entities that create archives. Such a view, however, is only one way
archives in liquid times
28
6 Manuel DeLanda's neo-assemblage theory is an elaboration of the ontological framework developed by the
postmodernists Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in: Capitalisme et schizophrenic 2: Mille plateaux, Paris,
Les Editions de Minuit, 1980. The theory offers a bottom-up framework for analyzing social complexity by
accentuating exchangeability, indefiniteness, and multi-functionality. Deleuze and Guattari's assemblage
theory is an approach that stresses that entities are not fixed, not predetermined, and not stable in their
ontology or location. Assemblages are formed through coding, stratification, and territorialization
processes. An assemblage, consisting out of imaginative articulations among heterogeneous elements,
defines the relationships with the bodies in and around it, and demonstrates social complexity. See also:
J.D. Slack, J. Macgregor Wise, Culture and Technology. A primer, New York, Peter Lang, 20142. Delanda's
starting point is his argument that assemblage theory is a reaction to the theory of organic totalities. In his
opinion, all 'parts' have some independence regarding the assembled 'whole' they help to constitute.
Although a 'whole' will change following the addition or removal of an individual 'part', the components
themselves do not need to change as a consequence of the new (dis)assembly. Assemblages, though dynamic,
are part of historical processes. DeLanda defines a reinterpretation of the concepts of Deleuze and Guattari
that provides a robust theoretical framework for analyzing assemblages. For an overview: M. DeLanda,
Assemblage Theory, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2016.
29